Cool and Sedate Reflection

January 17th, 2010

There are two traditional models for political representation: that of  a “delegate” or a  “trustee.”

A delegate is sent to a representative body to vote the way he believes his constituents would want him to. Such a delegate aligns his views directly with the collective views of the people he represents. He embodies his constituency. The delegate theory of representation is favored by populists and some early founders.  In the extreme limit, the delegate theory reduces to a more efficient way to implement a plebiscite democracy — the kind of democracy that through referenda has made California almost ungovernable.

The trustee model of representation holds that a constituency votes for a representative whose judgment they trust and rely upon. A trustee has the time to consider legislation in detail, and pursues legislation that would balance the benefits of the whole polity and the local constituency – even if the constituency disagrees with a particular position. In the extreme limit, a trustee model of the representation can degenerate to rule by the elite.

Some Congressional and Senatorial representatives subscribe to a hybrid of the above models. They believe they are sent to Washington to vote a certain way on one or two conspicuous issues  (e.g., gun control, abortion, farm legislation), while they are free to exercise their judgment in most other areas.

Conservatives, at least those who have not surrendered to populist temptations, subscribe to the trustee theory of representation, as advocated by William Burke and articulated by Alexander Hamilton in Federalist 71:

“The republican principle demands that the deliberate sense of the community should govern the conduct of those to whom they entrust the management of their affairs; but it does not require an unqualified complaisance to every sudden breeze of passion, or to every transient impulse… When occasions present themselves, in which the interests of the people are at variance with their inclinations, it is the duty of the persons whom they have appointed to be the guardians of those interests, to withstand the temporary delusion, in order to give them time and opportunity for more cool and sedate reflection.”

How should the trustee model of representation apply to the current debate about health care “reform?” A clear majority of Americans are doubtful of and opposed to the current version(s) of health care reform as they understand it (them) . Nonetheless, if in its  best deliberative judgment, Congress believes the reform is in the best interests of the country, then  the trustee model of representation would suggest that they vote in accordance with their best judgment.

There remain, however, several mitigating factors. The current health care reform proposal represents very radical adjustments of present arrangements,  and prudence suggests that we can expect comparably large unintended consequences. The results of truly “cool and sedate” deliberation rarely result in abrupt or radical changes.  Moreover, the ultimate success of such a complicated enterprise depends in part on its acceptance by the polity. Even if one believes that health care reform could theoretically produce better results, if the country does not subscribe to the same conclusion, it may reduce the probability of success. Strong public animosity to legislation is not an irrelevant consideration to someone entrusted as a representative.

It would be disingenuous for Democrats to argue that they are modulating the passing whims of the people with “cool and sedate  reflection,” while negotiating behind closed doors and buying  off special interests with targeted deals for Louisiana, Nebraska, and the unions. Rather than reducing volatility, Congress seems to be rushing headlong to pass a bill before popular sentiment makes it more difficult for representatives concerned about re-election to support the bill.

Liberal Democrats would be understandably disappointed if they cannot manage health care reform. However, the compromises  being agreed to (and supported by large pharmaceutical and  insurance companies) will likely create a system far different from the one they originally envisioned. Indeed, if presented with the current proposal a year ago, they would likely be embarrassed by it. The drive to get something — anything — rather than calm consideration is the driving ethos. Part of the discipline of a democracy is to maintain the good judgment not to push the polity too far from the direction they can be persuaded to travel. This political discipline and respect for the governed has been trampled in the stampede to health care. It is time for Congress to step back, pause, and reflect coolly and sedately about appropriate changes to current health insurance arrangements.

Posted in health care, healthcare, Politics, Social Commentary | No Comments »

Progressive Justice

January 10th, 2010

Colleges and universities are unique and critical constituents of the culture. They can be monastic refuges where professors are permitted to live the life of the mind, free to pursue ideas and knowledge for their own sake, unfettered by the necessity of immediate practical benefit. At the other end of the spectrum, professors can both seek knowledge and pursue remuneration for the practical benefits of their research.

Universities and colleges are also businesses that must pay the bills. They exist in an in between world, more or less dependent on tuition income, government grants or subsidies, and alumni contributions. Recently, universities and colleges — especially the elite ones — have become islands of “progressive” thought in a sea of a center-right republic. As a consequence, they can provide a glimpse into what the world would look like ruled by progressives free of the accountability to a constituency.

In 2006, members of the Duke lacrosse team were falsely accused of rape. In a complex society, there will always be serious accusations both with and without merit. It is the responsibility of law enforcement and the courts to sort through these. In this particular Duke case, it turned out that the district attorney in Durham North Carolina, Mike Nifong, did not conduct himself properly. It came to light that he withheld exculpatory DNA evidence, while at the same time insisting on the guilt of those charged. Fortunately, the parents of the accused were sufficiently affluent to hire quality legal representation.  If not for their representation, the accused might have been ground down under the wheels of aggressive district attorney. Ultimately, Nifong was disbarred and served one day in jail for criminal contempt of court.

Part of Nifong’s motivation was the necessity of re-election in Durham, NC. Eighty-eight Duke faculty members (eleven from the History Department) signed a statement implicitly assuming  that the rape charges were not only true, but symbolic of the behavior of white males. It was in this context that Nifong came to the case. It may have been Nifong’s eagerness to demonstrate his sensitivity to minority groups that clouded his prosecutorial judgment.

One might have thought that the whole situation would have caused those who rushed to judgment, particularly the Duke faculty, to be self-reflective and recognize the importance of waiting for due process.However, progressive thought is not so easily contained. None of the eighty-eight faculty who signed the petition apologized. Perhaps they assumed that even if these individuals were not guilty in this case, there must be something that the white jocks were guilty of.

Current actions by Duke are more revealing of the perverse logic of progressive justice. According to the National Journal, Duke has adopted a new sexual misconduct policy that creates a situation ripe for the same notorious injustice perpetrated by the lacrosse player accusations. The new rules assume very simple-minded and easily swayed Duke co-eds who must provide very explicit consent lest some male Duke student uses his high IQ to persuaded a fellow Duke student into sex. The new rules do not allow the someone accused of sexual misconduct the representation of an attorney or the right to face the accuser. The accuser can also receive copies of the investigative documents, while the accused can not.

The rules are an invitation to a lawsuit by someone falsely accused,  an alternative mostly available to one who afford an attorney. The irony is that this example of progressive justice was developed and adopted by those, one would be willing to wager, who are convinced that the former President George W. Bush eviscerated the Constitution by granting limited due process to illegal enemy combatants.

Posted in Law, Social Commentary | No Comments »

Health Care and the Consent of the Governed

January 3rd, 2010

It is easy to fall into the conceit that we face greater political challenges than our predecessors; that politics now is meaner and more divisive than it used to be. One virtue of studying American history is to remind us that the many of the same challenges we face now were faced before, albeit on a different political terrain and by almost certainly greater minds.

Modern students should also be suitably chastened to recall that political positions have shifted over time in unanticipated ways. Contemporary Democrats, who worship at foot of their political patron saint Thomas Jefferson, should remember his visceral antipathy to a strong national government. Republicans, who trace their political heritage to the first Republican president, Abraham Lincoln, may be disconcerted as his willingness to use strong national power when necessary.

In their eagerness to pass heath care reform, Democrats should perhaps consider the counsel of the first chief justice, John Marshall.  In 1823, many were focused on legislation to limit the power of the national judiciary. Ultimately, the effort failed in no small part because the passions of the moment created bills that were so single-minded that legislators failed to provide due deliberation on the full impact of what they were considering. It seems that the perceived necessity of passing something is overwhelming the true necessity of passing something well considered.

With the current health care bill widely unpopular and that structure of the bill complex to accommodate the necessity of cobbling together a narrow majority, Democrats would do well to consider the words on Marshall in a letter to Henry Clay.

“One of the most dangerous things in legislation is to enact a general law of great and extensive influence to effect a particular object; or to legislate for a nation under a strong excitement which must be suspected to influence the judgment. If the mental eye be directed to a single object it is not easy for the legislator intent on that object to look all around him and to perceive and guard against the mischief with which his measure may burn.”

If we are to embark changes of wide consequence in a society ruled by the consent of the governed, it is undoubted wise to do so only buttressed with wide public acceptance and support.

Posted in health care, Politics, Social Commentary | No Comments »

High Front End Costs, Back End Benefits

December 27th, 2009

“The welfare of the people in particular has always been the alibi of tyrants, and it provides the further advantage of giving the servants of tyranny a good conscience.” Albert Camus.

While individual and private collective charity is noble and common, welfare payments  viewed as charity financed by taxes have never been particularly popular. This is the reason why social welfare programs like Social Security and Medicare, despite of the fact that they largely represent transfer payments with clear winners and losers, are depicted as social insurance not welfare. People are persuaded that they are participating in a large pension program, where they contribute now and receive benefits at retirement as if money were stored is some specific account for them. Moreover, at the start of these programs, there were few beneficiaries so the costs and pain were low. Long-term sustainability was not an issue.Correctly or incorrectly, there is a sense of underlying justice to the transaction. That is why seniors remain so defensive about these programs. They feel entitled on the basis of their previous payments, even if those payments are in no way actually related to the benefits. This is the political genius underpinning the social welfare state — and why Democrats may have overstepped on the current“health care reform.”

It is impossible to predict the final state of the health care bill once it leaves conference committee. However, in order to make the bill financially palatable, the goal was to have a program that is deficit neutral. One can argue about whether the economic assumptions provided the Congressional Budget Office for the forecasts were realistic. However,  here is no question that in order to maintain plan deficit neutrality over the first decade, the taxes start for the first few year before the benefits commence in earnest. The pain is front loaded while the benefits come along the back end, the exact opposite of traditional strategies for extending social welfare programs. In the longer term, no one seriously believes that the program is financially balanced.

The strategy of the Left should be to get as many people dependent upon the benefits, to feel a sense of entitlement, before the costs come tumbling in. There is a precedent for a social program that did not work out because the costs were too obvious and the benefits less so. In 1987, Congress passed a catastrophic health care program for seniors. The idea was to limit the out-of-pocket expenses for seniors will chronic long-term health expenses. The goal may have been laudable, but it was largely paid for by middle class seniors, many of whom had difficulty affording the additional premiums (really taxes).  Seniors largely did not feel that they were benefiting from the new social contract. Two years later, the program was ended as frustrated seniors marshaled their ample political power against Congress. We shall see whether the health care changes suffer the same fate.

Posted in health care, Politics | No Comments »

Compromising the Education of the Poor

December 20th, 2009

The cost  is not even a rounding error in the national budget, but the Congressionally-funded Washington DC voucher program is highly symbolic and therefore a conspicuous target for those fearful of giving parents — particularly poor parents —  choices in the education of their children.  The average spending per pupil in the country is a about $9000, at least $4000 less than what is spent per pupil in the District of Columbia. Others have made the same calculation for DC public schools and compute a much higher value for per pupil expenditure. In any case, this amount if properly used, would seem sufficient to create at least a competent educational program. Nonetheless, DC public schools continue to rank at or near the bottom when compared to other systems.

The children of the affluent in the District of Columbia have no shortage of private schools to choose from. Indeed, President Barack Obama has availed himself of this option by sending his two daughters to Sidwell Friends at about $30K a piece. It, therefore, seems somewhat parsimonious for the President to a minor extent and more specifically for Democrats in Congress to end this scholarship program in the Omnibus Spending bill just pasted. The program offered a $7500 scholarship to offset tuition at a private or charter school to 3000 disadvantaged children, This enable the children of  poor parents to opt out of (some might say escape) local failing schools.  The long waiting list for the program attests to its popularity, or at least to disrepute of public schools.

The program is not expensive and the cost of any program has not seemed to be a deterrent for spending for the present government. The problem is that the success of non-public run schools represents an embarrassing indictment of DC public schools and of the teacher unions that are dependent upon them. Public school teacher unions would hate to see the idea gain popularity an provide unwanted competition. The termination of the program in the District of Columbia is a simple payback to the teacher’s unions. No one in the government has suggested that scholarships be part of the stimulus package. I suppose the money is better spent saving jobs in non-existent Congressional districts.

It is often said, “politics isn’t bean bag.” To the victor go the spoils. Teachers unions have received a good return on their political investments. However, in this case it would seem that the current government could avoid making the desperate children in DC public schools educational collateral damage.

Posted in Education | No Comments »

The Just War Speech

December 13th, 2009

In 1933, a period when Great Britain was still staggering and exhausted by the human loss of World War I, the Oxford Union Debating Society considered the proposition, “That this House will in no circumstances fight for its King and Country.” Even given the extremely categorical nature of the resolution, it passed overwhelmingly 275-153. It is amusing at this distance in history to see those in favor of the resolution unselfconsciously arguing, “It is no mere coincidence that the only country fighting for the cause of peace, Soviet Russia, is the country that has rid itself of the war-mongering clique.” The prevalent attitude  then in Great Britain, as evidenced by  the outcome of the debate, is part of the reason that in the words of President John Kennedy, “England slept” as European Fascism grew in power.

Ultimately, the consummate evil of the Nazi Regime and the ensuing war after a period of shameful appeasement woke England and the rest of the world from the pleasant dream of a world ruled by pacifist sentiments.  It was a lesson that should be hard to forget, but the peace in Europe for decades — a peace secured by  World War II — has largely erased the memory of the terrible necessity of war. The Europeans have enjoyed a generation where disputes in Europe are resolved by politics and committees. Wars as a means of resolving disputes seem barbaric and unnecessary.

In this context,  the Nobel Peace Prize Committee awarded President Barack Obama the its prize. President George Bush represented an America that sometimes found it necessary to its security to wage war. Obama was not Bush and ran for election on a policy that was largely critical of Bush’s war efforts. To his credit President  Obama and the the chagrin of his hosts recently stepped up to his duty to lecture the European elites, especially those on the Nobel Committee, on Just War Theory:

“But as a head of state sworn to protect and defend my nation, I cannot be guided by their examples alone. I face the world as it is, and cannot stand idle in the face of threats to the American people. For make no mistake: Evil does exist in the world. A non-violent movement could not have halted Hitler’s armies. Negotiations cannot convince al Qaeda’s leaders to lay down their arms. To say that force may sometimes be necessary is not a call to cynicism — it is a recognition of history; the imperfections of man and the limits of reason.”

Even if Obama appreciated Just War Theory long ago, we can be certain that his appreciation of its importance has grown given his responsibilities as President. It is a reminder of just how far European elites have fallen from this understanding, that Obama’s elucidation of the possibility of a just war took his hosts in Norway by surprise. The paragraph above represents words that could have been delivered by any elected leader and particularly by any American president. The Nobel Committee may have been disappointed.

Posted in Politics, Social Commentary | No Comments »

Yes We Can

December 6th, 2009

It is easy to forget how new a face President Barack Obama is. Obama first came to national public notice we he delivered a rousing keynote address at the 2004 Democratic National Convention that nominated Senator John Kerry for President. Kerry lost to President Bush, but Obama won his election as US Senator. Almost immediately afters he started running for president. Running for president was perhaps his most notable qualification for president. During one election cycle, Obama was an unknown Illinois State Senator and a little more than four years later, he is President of the United States.

There has never been even the smallest doubt about Obama’s rhetorical skills and charisma. Despite the fact, that he started out as a long shot to the obvious next Democratic nominee Senator Hillary Clinton, he never wavered in his personal confidence. He was manifestly capable of emotionally motivating young campaign workers and other supporters with the buoyant chants of “Yes We Can… Yes We Can…”

Obama never betrayed any doubts about his ultimate victory. He never publicly hedged in his personal conviction. Whether he harbored an personal doubts, he certainly knew that it would deflate supporters if he expressed an hesitancy. Obama never said that he would be committed to running to a particular point in the primaries and then he would reassess. Obama instinctively knew that confidence breeds more confidence and increases the likelihood of ultimate victory. Why then is Obama so tentative in his ambitions in Afghanistan?

Given the fact that Al Qaeda under the protection of the Taliban in Afghanistan planned and executed the September 11, 2001 attacks, it appears foolish to allow the Taliban to return to their previous status. When running for president, Obama called the War in Afghanistan the “necessary war.” Was this a conviction, or simply a rhetorical club with which to bludgeon the Bush Administration for its decision to fight in Iraq? In any case, one does not win either an optional or a “necessary” war with tentativeness an equivocation.

This last week, Obama gave a professorial speech to the cadets at West Point matter-of-factly explaining that it was important to keep the Taliban from returning to power. He would increase troops levels almost to the point originally requested by his hand-picked General Stanley McChrystal,  for 18 months and then would reassess. He would perhaps begin to bring troops home at that time. There was no talk of victory, no talk of overwhelming force, no mention of the previous success of a similar strategy in Iraq, no emotional rallying of the troops to face those who threaten the United States.

In this West Point speech, Obama could not marshal the same enthusiasm to encourage the troops as he did for his campaign workers in the 2008 election. The most charitable interpretation is that as gifted a speaker as Obama is, he has not yet fully embraced his leadership role as Commander-in-Chief. He displays none of the trademark Obama confidence about sending young men and women off to war. There is a more cynical interpretation: He would settle for nothing less than victory in his presidential run, while in the case of Afghanistan he would just like disengage as soon as possible.

For now, Obama has made the correct decision with regard to Afghanistan, though he has perhaps followed the former Secretary of Defense Don Rumsfeld strategy of being a bit too parsimonious with troop numbers. His tentative speech delivered in far too measured tones undermined the chances for victory there. You ought not send off troops halfheartedly to war. Why has Obama not embraced the General  Colin Powell Doctrine of once committing to conflict, use overwhelming force?

Posted in Afghanistan, Politics | No Comments »

Temptation to Betray the Scientific Process

November 28th, 2009

Any properly trained scientist is uncomfortably embarrassed with the assertion that the science is in on global climate change. Science is inherently provisional, open to new ideas and new data. Scientific revolutions have been the consequence of new data that needed to be explained. Sometimes these new interpretations undermine established theory. A Newtonian approach to understanding the universe was largely consistent with observed data, particularly, for example, the motion of the planets. In the nineteenth century and early twentieth centuries,  the photo-electric effect, X-rays and other radiation, and spectral lines emitted from heated materials, all created observations that could not be explained with conventional physics. Out of these measurements and new interpretations grew the theory of relativity and quantum mechanics.

The science underpinning global climate change is no different. In the 1970’s, scientists were concerned about global cooling. Additional measurements and careful theoretical modeling form a solid basis for concluding now that the Earth is warming in some important measure due to human introduction of additional green house gases into the atmosphere. Nonetheless, there are important questions to be addressed. In the last 10 years there has been a mild global cooling that is difficult to model. Additional work is necessary to understand potential feedback mechanisms that could either accelerate or modulate global warming. Long-term temperature measurements are constructed from proxies, such as tree ring diameters. Honest efforts at these reconstructions can either produce the famous “hockey stick” graph showing an unprecedentedly high global temperatures or roughly analogous temperatures in the Medieval Warm period. The latter graph might suggest a larger role for natural variability in the current period of temperatures.

If man is responsible for  climate changes with negative consequences like sea level rise, it is incumbent on humans to address the problem. To reduce greenhouse gas emissions will increase the cost of energy and very likely reduce economic growth, increase unemployment, and reduce living standards. It is, therefore, rational to balance these consequences against the consequences and possible uncertainty in global climate change. It is in taking positions with regard to this tradeoff that can tempt scientists to circumvent the the scientific process.

Recently, the e-mail server at the Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia in the United Kingdom, a scientific institution at the forefront of climate research, was hacked. Some the correspondence was made available on line. Some of the e-mails are incriminating, writing of “tricks” to hide the recent decline in temperature. Perhaps most damning are discussions about pressuring journals in the peer review process, keeping articles from consideration by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and refusing to make data available to skeptics of global warming. Although is hard to conceive of contexts that would make these e-mails less damning, we need to acknowledge that this possibility still exists. We shall see what time reveals.

The revealed e-mails suggest less that a climate warming hoax is being perpetrated, and more that the correspondents wanted to make sure that modest scientific disputes are not used to undermine in the public mind a general consensus about global warming. Since climate analysis and modeling is a new science, there will be anomalies and discrepancies that are difficult to explain with theory. The fear among some is that this natural scientific uncertainty and debate will hide an overall generally-accepted conclusion that the Earth is warming.

It is the appropriate scientific (rather than political) disposition that the aggressive and even combative review of data and analysis, especially by skeptics, enhances rather than subverts scientific inquiry. We can be most sure of results if they have passed through such gauntlets. By appearing to eschew to the ethos of open inquiry, these analysts have undermined rather than enhanced the ability to persuade policy makers of the importance of global warming. Worst, they have made publicly suspect people involved in climate research with results similar to theirs.

Posted in climate change, Social Commentary | No Comments »

Campaign Promises

November 22nd, 2009

Unequivocal campaign promises are useful in an election campaign, but usually nuisances once elected. In 1988 President George H. B. Bush clearly announced, “Read my lips. No new taxes.” After being pressured by a Democratic Congress while trying to garner support for the first Gulf War, Bush acquiesced on taxes. Never mind that Democrats wanted to increase taxes, they were able to effectively bludgeon Bush with his inability to keep a clear promise. It is rhetorically difficult to go back on a campaign promise.

President Barack Obama was not particularly consistent, but seems to have promised to “save or create” 3.5 million new jobs by 2011. Let’s engage in a little sentence parsing. We can assume that he is speaking about jobs created by the entire economy whole not just by the government, so he can claim jobs created in the private sector towards fulfilling the promise. Let us further assume that he is promising 3.5 million “net” jobs saved or created. If 3.5 million jobs are create, but 4 million lost, it would hardly be a boast that  Obama would be proud of.

Unfortunately, the economy has been hemorrhaging net jobs, and its is getting less and less probable that 3.5 million net jobs will be created by 2011. However, he apparently hopes to use creative accounting to at least claim some job creation. Unfortunately, the recovery.gov web site where these jobs are documented as proved to be an inflated embarrassment. Sometimes, cost of living increases are counted as jobs created and in some other instances jobs were created in non-existent Congressional districts. Moreover, created jobs are counted but there is no opposite side of the ledger where jobs lost to government policies are counted.

At the beginning of the year, the Obama Administration promised that if the stimulus package were quickly passed, the unemployment rate would never rise above 8%. At last count, it was 10.2% and still on the increase. Given the ability to calculate and predict economic statistics, people are entitled to be very skeptical of the administrations computation of  650,000 jobs saved.

The figure below shows the total employment since last year in blue. Employment is clearly dropping systematically. The red line is what the administration claims the job level would have been without the stimulus package. The stimulus seem rather ineffectual in the face of falling employment thus far, even if taken at face value. At best, if you believe the Administration’s numbers and if you believe that, without evidence, that the 650,000 represents net jobs not one half of the ledger, the stimulus is only a 0.4% effect on total employment. This seems like a modest benefit for which we raised the deficit to GDP ratio to the highest it has been since the World War II era.

It is understandable that Obama wishes not to be saddled with an unkept campaign promise. But it is preferable and perhaps even better political strategy to not be ridiculed for ludicrous claims or dishonesty than to face problems square on. The electorate can deal more effectively with honest efforts that have failed than dishonesty and denial.



Posted in Economics, Politics, Social Commentary | 1 Comment »

Trials of Choice

November 15th, 2009

Regardless of any political assessment of the presidency of George W. Bush, the one undeniable fact is it that after the attacks of September 11 the American homeland remained safe from terrorist attack under Bush’s watch. Whether because of or in spite of the hot wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, whether because of or in spite of detaining captured terrorists at Guantanamo, whether because of or in spite of enhanced investigative powers, whether due to foolish good fortune or wise policy, Americans have remained safe at home.

Last week, Army Major Nidal Hasan allegedly killed 13 people and wounded 30 others  at Fort Hood in Texas while reportedly shouting “Allahu Akbar!” – “Allah is the Greatest.” While the initial reaction in the media has been to downplay Hasan’s terrorist ties, it has become clear that at the very least Hasan was a home ground jihadist, inspired by radical Islam abroad. Now the Hasan shootings cannot be realistically blamed on the Obama Administration, it does represent the first successful terror attack on US soil since 9/11.

Since coming into office, the Obama Administration has scaled back the War on Terror, refusing to use even the term, while traveling the world apologizing for aggressive US behavior against terrorismm. Guantanamo is being shut down. Last year the War in Afghanistan was a war of necessity, this year decisions about strategy seem to be unsure and tentative, confusing troops and heartening the enemy.

Now the Obama Administration has decided to place five terrorist on trial in federal court, a trial of choice. Let’s be clear, the choice is not between indefinite detention and a fair trial. The Supreme Court has given its blessing to military trials especially designed for acts of war for individuals captured on the field of battle by the military. The federal trial will open up the possibility of accidental release of classified information, as similar trials have in the past, and the opportunity for terrorists to use the trial for propaganda purposes. We were told that the War in Iraq was a war of choice. It is fair to assert that these federal trials are not legally or morally mandated, they are trials of choice.

The only possible advantages of such a trial are moral preening on the part of the Obama Administration, the chance once again to do something George Bush would not have, and an opportunity to appease Obama’s base on the Left. However, as the Administration elects to roll back the intensity on the War on Terror, the more it sets itself up, fairly or unfairly, for blame should terrorists manage to carry off a spectacular attack on the US.

Posted in Politics | No Comments »

« Older Entries
Newer Entries »